Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 6 months ago
    Mars is obtainable now. My research for Shadows Live Under Seashells has shown me that its not only feasible but its probable. The setback would be the issue of literally brining everything one would need to survive for at least one year. When the planets are closest the trip would take 4 months. If timed properly the return trip could take an equal amount of time. The consideration, again, is supplying the pioneers with enough of everything to sustain them for a full rotation to realign the planets.

    Jbrenner, I wish I knew you when I wrote Shadows Live Under Seashells. Talking to those folks would have saved me a lot of time and research.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 6 months ago
      Isn't it problematic to bring fuel or equipment to extract fuel from Martian sources? My understanding is it's ten times harder to get back than it is to go. I'd like to see them start a colony there with the only hope for a return trip if the technology makes it more affordable.

      Maybe it's easier than I think. I've read about the Mars One project, and I think it's nonsense, but the idea itself is not at all nonsense.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 10 years, 6 months ago
        We've had the technology for a many decades now. It is proven and simple.

        A quick summary:
        Mars' atmosphere is heavily carbon dioxide (95%). We take Sabatier reactors with hydrogen as feedstock to run a basic exothermic chemical reaction process to produce methane (CO2 -> 4H2 -> (CH4 +H2O). This provides us with water and fuel. We then use electrolysis to produce oxygen and recapture some hydrogen from the water to cycle back into the system. We now have methane and oxygen. If we also combine this with the Reverse Water Gas Shift (RWGS) we have a single reactor capable of leveraging earth origined propellant mass of 18g propellant for every gram imported plus a high load of oxygen as well. If we consider the entirety of production from such a reactor we produce 34g of resources for every single gram we import. This system is entirely simple, predictable, one might even say boring, and automatable.

        And we've already built those reactors proving the concept. They were/are simple, robust, and inexpensive. From here we can actually bootstrap the manufacture of plastics. Combine that with 3D printing and you've got some seriously useful, compact, and lightweight bootstrapping going on.

        Getting back is so much easier than getting there. Anyone telling you it is the opposite is pushing an agenda or ignorant of basic physics. 90+% of the work done to get from a gravity well to anywhere in the solar system is done by getting out of the bottom of the well. With Martian gravity at less than half of Earth's, this is far, far easier. Indeed, this means we can send a shipment which has a return ship and this reactor system two years before sending humans. This would mean those going would know for certain before they even strapped into a rocket that they had a fully fueled base and return ship with more oxygen and water than they need already in place.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 6 months ago
          "We take Sabatier reactors with hydrogen as feedstock to run a basic exothermic chemical reaction process to produce methane (CO2 -> 4H2 -> (CH4 +H2O). This provides us with water and fuel. We then use electrolysis to produce oxygen and recapture some hydrogen from the water to cycle back into the system. We now have methane and oxygen."

          They did this in Ben Bova's book on Mars and "As It Is on Mars". I don't understand how it works. You still have to bring the H2 and some energy source capable of producing electricity for electrolysis. The only thing Mars provides is the the CO2. I guess it doesn't take that much H2, and you could have some small nuclear reactor doing the electrolysis.

          It's a good point that they could send this to Mars, get telemetry on how well it worked and only launch humans to Mars if the return vehicle is ready. I suppose that's obvious to anyone in the space program.

          So why don't they do it? Is it that probes are cheaper and some people believe sending humans would just be an emotional gesture that would not actually get more science done than sending multiple probes?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 10 years, 6 months ago
        Martian gravity is only 38% that of earth's plus they would be falling towards the sun on the way back.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 6 months ago
          Yes, lower gravity on Mars helps departure. Re the other point, unfortunately it does not work like that, unless you are stationary, as once on Mars they have the orbital velocity of Mars so requiring the same energy whether they want to depart inwards or outwards relative to the sun.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 6 months ago
    It's a joy to read AJA and JB talk of the trip to Mars. I've been dreaming of such a thing since I first read SciFi before it was called Science Fiction when I was 11 or 12. I have no concerns that mankind is capable of such an undertaking and as time passes will be increasingly more capable. The problem, as I see it is cutting through the almost impenetrable web of politics that will engulf such an endeavor if backed by the state. Can private funding be raised for such a project? The costs will be immense and the returns will be much in the future.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 6 months ago
      I see this kind of thing as the measure of a truly
      capitalistic society -- doing things which we usually
      think that the governments would do. it would sure
      be closer to fruition if the govt would get out of the
      way! -- j
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 6 months ago
    I really love the idea. Such a trip would be one-way or be very expensive. Maybe the isolation and slow communication times would lead to it becoming Gulch of sorts.

    It would have the intangible benefit of getting people excited about science.I would love to see a group of adventurers entrepreneurs set up some kind of zero-gee research facility on the moon.

    All my life we've been 15-20 years away from a Mars mission.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 10 years, 6 months ago
      While the distance would be a nice benefit looked at from that angle, I think the endeavor of building an entire civilization on our first non-Earth planet would require those with the mindset, ambition, dedication, and work ethic which makes the Gulch possible in the first place. Any Gulch-like qualities would be, IMO, natural derivatives of the act.

      And then when the looters have arrived and corrupted the civilization (unless physically prevented from doing so), we'd just start again elsewhere.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 6 months ago
    We could get to Mars now. The question really is would any astronauts have enough bone mass left after the approximately 3 years it would take to do the return trip. If interested, I can put you in touch with people who have worked toward a manned (or womaned) trip to Mars.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 10 years, 6 months ago
      Note that the three scenarios posited all utilize staging from low gravity intermediates due to the strong gravity well that would have to otherwise have to be overcome in an earth-based launch. This would also enable a much larger craft to be constructed from components ferried up and integrated in and launched from a low gravity environment. As to skeletal degradation, a larger craft would enable mimicking gravity using centrifugal force while providing spin-stabilization.

      OK, this is far-out, but considering the artificial knees and hips currently available, some form of cyborg technology might be developed to obviate bone density loss. The first Martians might be cyborgs!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 6 months ago
        Part of the key to dealing with the bone loss issue will be an invention by one of my fellow faculty members at Florida Tech. Larry Hench is the inventor of Bioglass, a ceramic that is pretty much at the only composition that is possible for bone to grow around an implant.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 10 years, 6 months ago
        Staging from LEO is a terrible idea. Any proposal built on it is one ignorant of the physics involved. Direct launch with TransLunar Injection to a direct Martian surface entry with aerobraking is the most efficient route, and something we have actual experience doing (We aerobrake to get back to earth, for example). It mat not sound as sexy or cool as building a battlestar in orbit and going from there, but it is incredibly efficient by comparison and reduces the cost from trillions to under 100B.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SolitudeIsBliss 10 years, 6 months ago
    Whether we want to go to Mars or not is not the issue. The true issue is the financial resources, the engineering capabilities and the intellect and drive of the American populace. The financial resources are not there, the engineering capabilities have been destroyed by the current educational system of the country and God forbid that this American generation dare risk anything, especially their lives, in order to dream big and achieve big ! These are not the times of the men with 'The Right Stuff'. Hate to say it but it's true. You'd have to reboot and toughen up a whole new generation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ DriveTrain 10 years, 6 months ago
    We'd likely already have a thriving colony there, if NASA had adopted the exhaustive plan that Robert Zubrin outlined in his book "The Case For Mars." But NASA is a bureaucracy, not a business, and suffers from all of the indecision, irrational choices and inefficiencies inherent to bureaucracies - that's entirely aside from, and in addition to, the whole issue of funding. It's also steeped in a Platonic "knowledge-for-knowledge's-sake" attitude, as evidenced in the fact that the Kepler planet-finder program was run in such a way as to have yielded vast information about planetary systems tens of thousands of light-years distant, yet made no effort to discover the existence of planets at Centauri, Bernard's Star or Wolf - stars well within the human time-frame for reaching with just the achievement of quarter or half light-speed propulsion. There was a valid reason for pointing Kepler in the direction they did - *to begin with* - but they didn't even bother to point it at nearby stars after its primary data set was gathered. But I digress.

    When we look at history, every significant human exploration and expansion across space (more preceisely: land and sea,) has been motivated by the quest for productivity and profit. On forming the company SpaceDev, the late Jim Benson predicted that mining asteroids "would probably create the first trillionaires," and he was correct in that identification. Once some entrepreneur - my money would go with Elon Musk - demonstrates that there is fantastic wealth to be gained off of Earth, an outer space "gold rush" will commence spontaneously.

    Whether there is anything about Mars that will prove lucrative enough to draw that kind of traffic is an open question. I'm thinking we'll have far more activity on asteroids, and far earlier than Mars, precisely because of their mining potential. There will be scientific and human missions to Mars that are almost totally divorced from economic motives of course, and as a result will be costly in execution, slow in happening and primitive in form.

    The most interesting - if implausible - idea I've ever seen came from (objectivist) writer Ron Pisaturo, in a screenplay he wrote titled "The Merchants of Mars." (If I'm not mistaken, the original idea came from Harry Binswanger, and that it was a collaboration.) A fictitious future President announces a global contest: Any person or company that successfully lands a crew on Mars, lives there for one year, and returns safely to Earth, owns Mars. Yes, owns.

    The idea actually makes sense: Mars is currently a useless, barren rock, therefore the only value of it would come from selling off parts of it as real estate. So this single owner would sell off chunks of Mars to other real estate speculators, and they to others, until there were thousands of Martian landowners. At some point one or more of the buyers would be an industrial entrepreneur with a plan and the financial means of exploiting Martian resources - whether mining, a polar ski resort, a hotel on Mons Olympus, etc. - and an infrastructure would take shape.

    The only flaw in Pisaturo's concept is the prospect that it might remain an endlessly-traded real estate speculation thing for decades, with no actual development of the planet.

    The huge upside to his concept is that it would establish property rights at the ground floor, which is obviously essential, particularly given the breathtaking audacity of the "outer space treaties" excreted in the late '60s by the "United Nations."

    Anyhow, long story longer, I highly recommend Zubrin's book "The Case For Mars":
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0684827573

    (Zubrin has since penned a number of followup books on the human expansion into space - linked on that Amazon page - but I haven't had time to read them.)

    Also "Mining The Sky" by John S. Lewis:
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0201479591/
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 6 months ago
    One day some of us will want to go there and if necessary and capable, self fund the trip... just to be out from under the clutches of the tyrants here. Sure, we may reclaim Freedom and Liberty here on Earth for a time here or there, but during the settling, expansion of our nation and the westward movement of people it was freedom, the desire to be left alone and distance from others that drove many. Today, in this world, largely explored, with its technology and powerful governments it is most difficult to avoid their grasp. It is in many a man's nature to be an explorer and to be free of the demands of others. Men climb the highest mountains. Why? "Because it is there." That is what they say.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zero 10 years, 6 months ago
    Such questions seem downright silly when you take a longer view.
    Why should tomorrow seem like science fiction? It is certain to happen.

    Most people give up the future as unknown and unknowable, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Many things, yet-to-happen, are patently obvious.

    I fret not over NASA budgets, Luddites and Earth First'ers. Nor the ambivalence of pampered youth.

    I give no more than a smirk to fools who deny all advance, impossible for myriad reasons, usually laid out in considerable detail.
    Torrents of sound and fury still signifying nothing.

    As a SPECIES we are driven to explore and expand. Empty spaces beckon to us - cry out to be filled, possessed!

    ALL persons are excited to learn. From birth. It is inherent to our being.
    The unknown may be frightening, but it is also catnip - we just can't leave it alone.

    And we are a brave race. (The race of Man, not the races of color - nothing is less important than color.)


    Will we ever get to Mars? Do we want to?
    PR, come back in a thousand years and behold ALL the worlds of Man.



    (Unless, of course, our interstellar neighbors teach us the universe is not so benign as we thought.)
    (But, there's no reason to fret about that either.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by shivas 10 years, 6 months ago
    Obviously there's a wide diversity of opinion among the posters here. As with almost all things, it must be privately funded to make sense to me.
    Other than a handful of actual adventurers, many of those who want to spread to other planets live in the Malthusian delusion that population soon will outstrip the food supply. In spite of centuries of proponents of the concept going back to ancient Egypt, human ingenuity has always won out.
    That said, if the proponents can muster the support by making a convincing argument, and succeed, they would reap the benefits of their risk.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 10 years, 6 months ago
      I'm curious as to where you draw this conclusion from. I have heard the "backup planet" argument, the "because it is there" argument, the "to be free" argument, the economic or scientific arguments, and even the "just because I like the idea" argument. But not once has anyone who is actually taking time and effort into exploring the idea and even making progress toward achieving it use anything like a Malthusian argument.

      While I do not doubt random uninvolved people may do so, I've not seen, to say that view represents anything regarding a substantial portion of us (i.e. worth mentioning and arguing against) is to make an unwarranted generalization
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by shivas 10 years, 6 months ago
        What other rational argument is there? Now perhaps I am using Malthusian in too broad terms as I am including the back-up planet (we've killed off Mother Earth) folks in this category, but seriously, because it's there? To be free is a specious argument as we are currently headed to Mars on the taxpayer's dime. Freedom can't be bought like that.

        There may be a few adventurers, and maybe I am over generalizing, but just for the fun of it is not an argument.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TheRealBill 10 years, 6 months ago
          You are certainly overgeneralizing here. A "backup" is not Malthusian but rather a disaster preparedness scenario. Malthusian is running out of resources by growing to more demand than exists, not said resources (for example) getting destroyed.

          There is a difference between how you seem to be using the phrase "rational argument" and how you may be using it. If you ask me why I climb a mountain and I say because it was there and I wanted to, that is a rational argument. It was in my self interested because I'd rather do fun things than not, am happier when I do so, and so I did. Whether you accept the reasons as "good enough" is a personal choice for you, but that choice does not invalidate the argument itself. You can think climbing a mountain is fun, but that simply reflects your conclusion not the argument itself.

          Now, to answer the question I think you are actually asking: *why* go?

          Part of scientific exploration and discovery is the collection of data and performing experiments. A key portion of analyzing data is obtaining a broad enough sample size. Our current planetary sample size is one. Essentially, on a larger scale our geological knowledge is an anecdote. Now, it is entirely possible you do not consider advancing scientific knowledge and understanding a goal worthy of effort, but that does not mean it is irrational.

          Another reason is expansion of markets and human capability. While I am nowhere near agreeing with any Malthusian argument, it is not realistic to think or assume that while we *can* continue to populate at higher and higher densities that we all *want* to live in high density cities. Thus I find it rational for those who do not want to live under increasingly dense cities and resulting side-effects on nearby areas to be able to choose to go elsewhere. This is reflected in historical and modern history by those who choose to not live in cities today.

          Put me in a high density setting with no escape options and I am not a happy camper, nor do I play well with the usual results of such a setting. It is my interest, as well as yours, that we are not in that setting together.

          If we want to establish any serious level of spacefaring, Mars is the best bet from a purely rational view. When looking at transportation technologies outside of those currently the realm of fantasy, you have to consider the mass budget. A standard way of doing this is to compare "delta-V" and "mass-ration". The former is how much change in velocity is needed (i.e. how hard you have to hit the thrusters", while the latter is how much mass the vessel has fully fueled compared to it's dry weight. With that explanation in mind, I'll show you why Earth based operations are a last-choice option.


          From Martian surface to low orbit: 4.0dV with a mass ratio of 2.9.
          For Earth: 9 and 11.4

          Big deal, right?

          Now let us look at other destinations in our solar system. How about to the surface of Earth's moon.
          From Mars' surface: 9.4 / 12.5
          From Earth's surface: 15 / 57.6

          Yes, it is takes less energy to put a man on Earth's moon from Mars than it does from Earth. And it isn't chump change either.

          How about mining ye olde asteroid belt? Let us consider Ceres as many, if not most, proposals about doing so call out Ceres or similar ones.

          From Mars' surface: 8.9 / 11.1
          From Earth's surface: 18.6 / 152.5

          Again, Mars is the clear winner here. But what about the return trip? After all that is the path of the cargo, yes?

          To Mars' Surface: 2.7 / 2.1
          To Earth's Surface: 4.8 / 3.7

          Any transportation scheme we come up with which is mass sensitive favors Mars. Even if you consider nuclear-electric proulsion, Mars still enjoys a 7X advantage over earth. Based on the physics of space travel as we currently know of them, Mars will be the economic hub of a spacefaring human race. Why? Because doing things more efficiently, cheaper, or with more opulence at the same price level is how we accomplish things and advance the state of man.

          This also applies to manufacturing of space vessels, such as is referenced in another post on "building the Enterprise". We won't be building that in Earth orbit. The answer to why is simple: it is far cheaper. If you want to build a vessel massing 150 megatons, you aren't finding that mass laying around in orbit, you are importing it from somewhere.

          Said somewhere will be planet-side or from the Belt. Now think back to the figures above. Where will it be cheapest to push that mass from? Mars, once again.

          Once we've built the tether relay to handle the delta-V of interplanetary travel, the costs will drop even further. But again, that material will not be coming from Earth.

          You don't have to be a Malthusian to want to use less resources to accomplish a goal - that is simple efficiency. You don't have to accept the Malthusian argument of overrunning resources to understand that the existence of resources on Earth doesn't mean those who control them are willing to part with them. If some entity controls a crucial resource and will not do business with you, you must find new sources - unless you're a looter. It may be presumptuous but I don't assume we are looters here.

          In many ways Mars is richer than Earth in terms of resources. Why not go to where more sources of materials are? That seems to be more of a Looter style argument - "don't develop more resources" - which if acted on would create an artificial Malthusian scenario.

          I would also assert there is a case to be made that humanity needs frontiers. Yes, America's free society compared to the rest of the world in the era between the Civil War and the first World War was a significant factor in our technological and industrial advancement. However, it was the frontier nature of the country which provided the fertile ground and even a need for the innovation to be born.

          We are rapidly outpacing our terrestrial frontiers - by simple progress and by legislative fiat declaring sections of continents, and even an entire continent, off limits. Even the ocean is becoming more and more off-limits. As we lose our frontiers our innovation will shrink. There is a breed of man which must have the frontier. By nature of not being one, you may not understand it. That does not, however, mean your lack of vision or understanding constitutes these reasons as being irrational.

          Your argument about government is a strawman. We are not currently heading to Mars on taxpayer dime as the government isn't currently going to Mars. Robot toys aren't considered us going as we aren't *going* anywhere. The notion of us "doing science" with robotic rovers is a fallacy. It is woefully inefficient. Single manned mission to mars of even as little as four people would accomplish far more than all RoV missions to date.

          To explore a planet you need planetary mobility. Yes, that seems obvious. Yet proponents of excluding human exploration for their vastly inferior methods seem oblivious or willfully ignorant of that basic fact. If you devise a ratio of cost-per-explored-area (feel free to use square meters, miles, acres, etc.) you'll find that done is a simple and direct method (i.e. not the enterprise, moon base, or other options - in other words the same way robots are done), you'll find the cost favors human exploration over robotic.


          Whilst I am against the government running the show for space exploration, I must disagree with your assertion of "freedom can't be bought that way". It absolutely can, and has been. It was governments which paved the way for the Americas to be explored and settled. Just to be clear I am not arguing government should do it today, simply that history counters your claims.

          Freedom of association by building your own settlement is freedom. However, you will not be building your own ships or you the initial colony infrastructure. You will be purchasing that from someone. Buy your transport from Elon Musk, and your settlement starter kit from me, then do whatever trade with other people and settlements you want. ;)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kulord 10 years, 6 months ago
    I understand mars has a lot of iron ore. Perhaps.. Rearden Steel, Newtown, Mars 99999 could happen.

    Eventually we will need all the resources we can get
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 10 years, 6 months ago
    Ah! One of my most favorite subjects to ruminate on.

    Is Mars obtainable? Yes. Is it worth it to go? Not in the slightest.

    There is no point to send Men to Mars, other than to prove we can. And at our current capabilities, it would be a one way trip. While I am sure there are idiots who would gleefully sign up for it, that doesn't mean we should do it. Frankly, we are approaching the whole concept backwards.

    What we are doing now is akin to trying to get to the new world by canoe. Sure, someone might actually make it to the New World in a damned canoe, but what would be the point? It would behoove them to invent something called the "Sailboat", and to perfect it to a point where it would be reasonable to travel from Europe to America in a decent amount of time. It definitely would not be without risk, but it tips the scales from guaranteed death to very high expectation to make it.

    The first problem to cross is the question, "Is Mars worth it to visit?" The answer is "NO!" There really is nothing to see and do on Mars that a robot couldn't do without the overhead of supporting life. But I think there should be a reason to visit Mars. We should make a reason to visit.

    Step #1.) I'd take a rocket, put a nuclear reactor in it, crash it into the ice caps (both on the poles, and in the big seas under the surfaces) and start our own greenhouse effect. Take all the ice, convert it into water vapor, and just burn them away. This would create a climate on mars that, while it may not be as great as on Earth, could be conducive to life. Some form of life, which takes us to:

    Step #2.) We need food on mars. Once we have a climate, or even if we don't get a climate due to #1 failing, we need some sort of agriculture so that people can actually live on Mars and not die. Because the terraforming process of step #1 will take 2-3 DECADES, we should start researching planting food on mars now. We'll probably have to genetically engineer it, but we have to start somewhere.

    The next problem is getting to mars. Currently we sit astronauts on thousands of pounds of explosives, and then hope we can explode it the right way, launching their asses into the sky in, lack for a better term, controlled flight. So this gives us another set of goals, especially for Nasa:

    Step #1.) Invent a new propulsion system. Sounds easy on the surface, but it really isn't. In essence, we in the 21st century are still basically using 19th century technology. We make it look shiny and new, but other than the means of making a crank shaft turn, it's basically the same thing. And that has to change. We desperately need something different. Half of NASA's research should be directed to this goal. We have 20-30 years to accomplish it, and it needs to happen. Shooting a firecracker into the sky is childish, and foolish. And if we aim it just right, it might land on Mars, we really need something better.

    Step #2.) A new propulsion system is nice, but we need something to power it. Like I said before, we are still basically using 19th century technology to run our engines. Gasoline. Coal, Rocket Fuel, Nuclear Fuel... We need a new energy source to power it. Whether it's Cold Fusion, or a better capture of Nuclear Energy, we need SOMETHING to be able to power our new propulsion system. The laws of physics haven't changed. It still takes a set amount of energy to get from here to Mars. But we need to figure out how to generate it differently. Again, remember we have 20-30 years to accomplish it.

    Step #3.) All of this has to be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time. If Mars has food, and Earth has food, but there is no food in between, then the critical path becomes the travel over. If we can make it to mars in 2 weeks when it is the furthest away, we have solved a lot of the problems of space travel we are currently faced with.

    So to sum up, if we want to go to Mars, **WE** need to make it worth it to go to mars in a reasonable amount of time. We need to be able to live on Mars. We need to be able to get there without exploding. We need to be able to create a new world on Mars. And I think it's doable.


    The only unfortunate thing in my mind is that the amount of work it will require will put me at some 60+ years old by the time it becomes feasible (again, assuming everything works).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Jaysun 10 years, 6 months ago
    I guess my question would be. Why not the moon? its closer, has water and material needed to mine for ore.. we can use the moon as a 'launching pad'-per say.. to the solar system.. I guess my only concern would be the lack of atmosphere and the danger of a an asteroid landing on any facilities we would have on the Moon.. I guess a secured bunker would be more pragmatic ..perhaps directly into a 'gultch'.. the Sci-fi g33k in me.. wants us to go to Mars in hopes that there was a space faring race within out solar system before us as per Zecharia Sitchin's theory...I just feel that the Moon would be a better 'starting' point rather than directly going to Mars
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RD43 10 years, 6 months ago
    For financing a Mars mission — maybe we can convince Michael Bloomberg to spend his money on a Mars expedition rather than on his continuing efforts to take away our firearms. He's heavenly minded, you know, and doesn't have time to be interviewed by God before storming into heaven by his own goodness and works on behalf of humanity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 6 months ago
    Yes, eventually we'll go to Mars and not only do we want to, we need to. Although the vast majority of the technologies to enable human's escape from the limits of the Earth are still not known - the eventuality of an 'extinction event' on Earth is known. Human's as a species must travel from the Earth as it had to leave Africa.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by hattrup 10 years, 6 months ago
      This seems to be a common view - and with some undeniable appeal.
      However, whenever I really start to think about it - I am not convinced at all.
      It takes a huge amount of resources to get material/mass from Earth;s surface to Mars.

      Just thinking about the energy balance and economics makes that prospect of using Mars to thwart an extinction event seem silly. You could create livable environments anywhere on Earth with less energy, less cost (probably even in Antarctica and under the Ocean), not to mention the risk to life.

      My opinion is that whoever wants to travel there do it on their dime - and the best way to "get" there is by a virtual presence - forget the risk, cost, energy, and time of actual humans traveling.

      You want to go to Mars? Send your supercomputer, multi-sensory robot (perhaps with some of you own self downloaded into it in 50 years...).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 6 months ago
    The chance to expand to space and live in liberty must be ultimately based on return on investment. First efforts should be self repairing, (and reproducing) mining robots, with scientific capabilities, controlled by humans on earth.
    Robots are not nearly so "high maintenance" as humans: air, water, food, and waste processing are expensive to move out of a gravity well.
    Ultimately robots can build the infrastructure for human colonies, after the costs of doing so have been reduced through improved production techniques. This could also include terraforming/farming efforts on Mars if practical.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 6 months ago
    Although I think that the only future for human liberty is in space, by getting as far from the reach of the state as possible, I think any effort by NASA or other government entity will be a boondoggle.
    They will steal the money and pretend it is being spent on getting to Mars, while wasting it on political power building, corporate welfare, empire building, and socialist schemes.
    Then they will blame the scientists for failure.
    Looters!

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by hattrup 10 years, 6 months ago
      The opportunity for human liberty exists here on Earth. It is a huge source of resources useful to life. Space is a dangerous, expensive, and difficult alternative - I think the looters would be incredibly easier to deal with here on Earth.
      But I do actually really enjoy Science Fiction - especially Heinlein.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 10 years, 6 months ago
        You can't take the sky from me. <grin>
        Heinlein is my fave for sci-fi. Spent 3 years in Oz/NZ and most scifi readers were either lacking any knowledge of Heinlein, or very confused about his message in Moon...Mistress. One Israeli thought Heinlein was a fascist.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by eddieh 10 years, 6 months ago
    Lets face it the mission to the moon was incredable and the technogly developed from the entire space program was and is invaluable. We went to the moon and returned but found little value there. We will need to explore, it's our nature and we need to find another place to go because we have crapped this place up pretty well. It will also create peacetime employment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 6 months ago
    Let's assume to begin with that the launch authority will not be any government. I think we can all agree that exploration of new territory is not a proper function of government according to Randian political theory.

    Here is the project that, in its first generation, will plant a self-sustaining colony on Mars:

    http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/

    The focus, in short, is building a space-to-space craft, that has a wheel-like inner tube to simulate Earth-normal gravity. The technology to build this kind of vessel is easily adaptable to providing Earth-normal gravity on a lunar or martian base. The secret is a beveled ring that spins to provide a resultant force with magnitude equal to g, but a direction that is neither straight down nor straight across.

    The cost of this project is admittedly steep. The estimate is $1 trillion US. That would be slightly less than a billion Troy ounces of gold at current commodity-market rates. This cost includes research in to the technologies of the ship itself and the techniques for building it. I would envision offering a collective-bargaining agreement to the Ironworkers' Union. Ironworkers, unique among skilled workers, already have training for working at great heights. This should be readily adaptable to training a man to build something in space.

    The other secret is: a vessel like this is a mobilie colony. It will spend most of its time in geostationary earth orbit, where it can serve the functions of a spaceport and dock-and-repair shop for other GEO satellites. And in an emergency, it can perform asteroid capture, diversion and destruction. Ultimately it would serve as the construction shack for the building of the next-generation vessel, which would have the range to travel to the Kuiper Belt. We would then park this vessel in permanent orbit around either Earth, Mars or Venus.

    The next question is: why go to Mars? Because, unique among the rocky planets, Mars gives us the best shot at building a colony on the surface. You will not build a colony on Venus; at best you'll build a Cloud City and suspend it by balloon, at an altitude of thirty miles. But on Mars you could land and maybe seed some of that regolith with the kinds of micro-organisms that make Earth soils fertile. In short, you're looking for a world suitable for human population expansion. (The Moon, in contrast, is a good mineral source, particularly for tralphium, or helium-3.)

    What I introduced here is a way to think beyond planning for one mission only. The real decision is whether to explore deep space for possible mineral wealth or population expansion, or give that up and concentrate on how to make the most of things here on earth. If you're going to do the former, do so by planning long-term, not short-. Build a ship that can double as a spaceport and repair shop, thus paying for itself between missions, and get you places in the most cost-effective manner. Think Taggart Aerospace, collaborating with Rearden Steel to build that ship out of Rearden Metal. (And who knows? Someone might actually discover, in a microgravity environment, how to produce a substitutional alloy of iron and copper, enhanced with carbon, that can achieve all the advantages Rand attributed to Rearden Metal.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by hattrup 10 years, 6 months ago
      "why go to Mars? Because, unique among the rocky planets, Mars gives us the best shot at building a colony on the surface.
      "
      I am not convinced any group will spend a trillion $ to build a colony on Mars, because it is a better place than Venus...

      I am sure with $1 Trillion you could create a many looter free paradises here on Earth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 10 years, 6 months ago
      A wheel based design for a space vessel sounds cool as hell. However it is fraught with physical complexity and unnecessary risks. We can achieve the effects of gravity with a tether & counterweight based system. With such a setup we require a slight fraction of the mass the linked design would require and without the need to figure out and master zero-g manufacturing and assembly and the support infrastructure needed to build it. A tether+counterweight system would be less than a quarter of your estimated trillion USD. This is because it is a relatively simple add-on to an existing design. You reinforce the habitat to be "suspended" where the tether attaches (not necessarily a single point, btw), keep your booster mass, and implement a simple reel system with thruster to provide control over the forces generated. Very little additional mass required and all of it can actually be tested and validated on terra firma.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Temlakos 10 years, 6 months ago
        Yes, the tether-counterweight model would at least let the astronauts travel in a gravity similar to that on Mars. You could even load the bulk of their equipment as the counterweight, and land both habitat and counterweight together, and they need not be very far apart.

        Now if you're going to land four people, or maybe six, I agree. But the project outlined at the link could land as many as a hundred at a time. And before you even get to landing that crew, you land scores of aircraft, rovers, and even stationary sensors, together with digging and tunnelling machines that can follow their own programs, or take orders from earth, to prepare the habitat for the large exploration colony to come.

        Perhaps this quick-and-dirty mission would be acceptable as a preliminary feasibility study--studying the feasibility of martian agriculture, that is. A greenhouse, on a small scale, with a minimal crew to run it--yes, I can see the wisdom of that.

        But here's another advantage of the larger vessel with the gravity wheel. It would also be large enough to carry a magnetic deflector, that would guard against the solar wind and the radiation burden this presents. Remember: anyone out there will be beyond the protection of the earth's magnetic field. It might be worth it to build a ship big enough to generate its own protective magnetic field.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TheRealBill 10 years, 6 months ago
          The magnetic field isn't a problem given the short duration of exposure. Thus it isn't worth it to build a ship that size. The radiation increase is far too minor for anything of this scale.


          The method I speak of isn't a quick and dirty mission, but part of a larger strategy to build a perhaps less sexy but orders of magnitude more achievable system.

          We didn't start with cruise liners and 747s for many a good reason. We didn't begin westward expansion by beginning with railroads, but rather later - one the economy and demand was there. I think the cost estimate for what you describe is very low given the lack of supporting technology, experience, and expeditious implementation.

          Before you could even get, to borrow a phrase, the keel laid for this ship we'd have a fully running colony and likely be mining an asteroid or two and possibly building a tether relay. :)

          Someday we will build the enterprise, and it will be a glorious event. But it will be built at Mars (as it should be ;) ) instead of for the purpose to get there. :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ FredTheViking 10 years, 6 months ago
    I don't think getting to Mars in the near future is a desirable goal. I think it is a waste of resources. No doubt there would be long-term benefits, but I think we should focus on what we are doing now. That is establishing a presences in Space. We need to build an economy there. We need a economic in Space before we spread out. Let's start by getting a moonbase. There is materials there that can havest there. If we can learn to sustain human life in space, then we can travel in space at a time when the economics make sense. We went to the moon too soon. We got there to look at it and left it with little show for it.

    A trip to Mars will be a fool's errand. What would we do there, but to just check it out and leave. No, if we go, we go to establish something there. A way to survive when we get there. We do that only when we have establish our selves in space. That will take time and patience, but I think that is a better approach. For now, we can send out automonous robot to explore and gather data, which will be very helpful in the future when we are ready to go out and explore.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 10 years, 6 months ago
      Ah, now we've hit one of my specialties: Mars. :)

      FredTheViking, you have it completely backward. How do you establish an economy "in space"? You need something to produce, to sell, to exchange. To top that off you have to be able to do it at a price which is affordable by those who would be your market.

      The moon does not provide this. Mars does.

      Mars is actually the easier of the two. It takes more fuel to get to the surface of the moon than it does to get to the surface of Mars. Mars' atmosphere means less shielding is required to be shipped or used. Mars' atmosphere provides proven, simple, and reliable means for producing air, water, and fuel. Mars has mineral resources which are actually useful now as opposed to theoretical fusion fuel supply on the Moon.

      The presence of Mars' gravity field means an easier adaptation - which is precisely what bone loss is.

      Further, if you want to harvest asteroids from 'the belt', you'll need to do that from a Martian settlement/base, not from the Moon.

      It isn't any "safer" to go to the moon than Mars in the event someone needs rescued. Indeed it is arguably the opposite. If you need to ship someone from Earth to Mars or the moon they will nearly always arrive just to collect the bodies and start over. Indeed, the resources and environment of Mars actually give an edge to survival efforts over Luna.

      Going to Luna first is like going from New York to Colorado by way of Europe.

      I've spent years studying and researching how to move us to a spacefaring race. Every alley and twist has lead me to discard my old beliefs in such things as "The Colony Ship" or the traditional NASA "Battlestar Galactica" model, and even space stations and moon bases as logical and practical first steps. They are not.

      The facts of the matter are Mars is the least expensive and has the most to offer.

      In order to support the notion we will also need to build a transportation infrastructure. As much as I love the idea of Cyclers (ships which non-stop cycle along a path and enable pick up and drop off - think of a mothership in sci-fi), I've come to conclude we could do it by building a tether system for slingshotting people and cargo around the solar system. In order to do this, however, we need mass - and a lot of it. This mass is best obtained from the asteroid belt - which means we are back to Mars. This system would be built from Mars to Earth, not the other way around.

      If you analyze the history of mankind spreading across this planet you'll see parallels between what i am saying and how we've done it so far. The Moon is a traditional boondoggle in that it is currently and for the foreseeable future impossible for a moonbase to be self sustaining and not require vast infusions of resources from Earth. mars can start with a dozen people and take in more every couple of years. In many ways it is the ultimate expression, IMO, of many of the principles in the Gulch - though nobody will accidentally crash-land there. ;)

      One final note for this post, regarding bone mass loss.

      This is only a problem if you plan on returning to Earth in that condition. Those saying "well astronauts in space lose X% per month" are not looking at all the facts and data. Bone loss stops. Why? Because shedding the bone is a natural adaptation. "natural adaptation to space?!, you ask? Yes. You see, we are looking at it from the wrong angle. We are not in a steady state of bone mass. We are in a state of constantly building bone mass to cover bone loss. This building is in reaction to our physical environment's demands; not that dissimilar from muscle loss. Indeed we can replicate the bone and muscle reduction in studies where you are in a perpetual state of laying down. So you see, it isn't bone loss but a reduction in reactive bone production. Consider it in a similar manner as "centrifugal force" - we call it a force but it isn't one.

      Thus, the apparent loss stops when the body and the environmental demands are balanced. Absent a gravity well this will be a comparatively low number. Mars has about two-thirds Earth's gravity so it is reasonable to expect our post-adaptation bone mass on Mars to be in that range. Yet this isn't a problem if we stay on Mars because we are adapted to it.

      Conversely if we settled a planet with, for example, 1.2% Earth's gravity level we'd see in increase in bone density and muscle tissue (or more specifically, strength). And we would have the same issues a Mars adapted human would have in coming to Earth. We would be "weaker" and more vulnerable to falling damage but our bodies would adapt to the level of our environment.

      This, too, is easily within our realm of existing technology to handle. A ship traveling to Mars or from Mars to Earth can have effective gravity. This is accomplished via a tether system to provide whatever level of gravity we want. This means going from Earth to Mars we can retain our Earthly level of physical adaptation and then adapt to the Martian level (approx. .38G). Or we can slowly reduce the level enroute. On the return leg we can do the inverse and slowly increase the level. By comparison the Moon has about 1/6th of a G, so any argument based on bone and muscle loss still favors Mars.


      I've suspected for years now that the Gulch will be on Mars, and Earth will one day be saved by Martians. In my mind I've even named my initial slingshot route the John Galt Line. ;) If you want to know more about how and why Mars is the best first choice feel free to ask (we've hit my main passion) and I'll happily load you up on information. :D Just be prepared to potentially let go of your current beliefs about space travel and human settlement outside of Earth's gravity wells.

      Some suggested resources:
      The Case For Mars - Robert Zubrin
      Failure is Not an Option - Gene Krantz (sp?)
      Entering Space - Robert Zubrin

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by hattrup 10 years, 6 months ago
        Are the any economic details and analysis behind this vision? I assume it will take money to make this happen, and wondering where it would come from and why.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TheRealBill 10 years, 6 months ago
          See the resources I listed, particular the Zubrin books as they are the most detailed yet accessible. Something most don't realize is the existing space industry is far, far larger than is generally discussed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 6 months ago
    nasa is nothing more than a hole in space like a boat is a hole in the ocean to put money. those folks who go to wash. to supposedly work for we the people just like to spend money wantonly. first they who are charged with developing the space craft will have to make a gravity making system to keep people somewhat healthy while traveling and then once on the planet they will have to build a structure again with a gravity making machine. this is just the tip of the iceberg you might say. when you take into consideration that our education system is NOT producing THINKING people who will be hired to create what is needed. it is not going to happen anytime soon.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 6 months ago
    Depends on who you mean by "we". Mankind? sure. Americans? Not so sure.

    I'm still more interested in Venus.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo